This page lists rigths of way where the mapping status value stored in this tool appears to be inconsistent with what is mapped in OSM (and tagged with a prow_ref=* tag).
No RoWs found with this issue
No RoWs found with this issue
| Parish | Number | LGIS | LOSM | ΔL/L | MS | LE | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beachamwell | RB | 5 | 3904 | 3817 | −2.2% | 2 | 2y | Route obstructed by stinging nettles in open field near east end. Short section unmapped in OSM to the east of this field. |
| Beeston with Bittering | FP | 1 | 617 | 650 | +5.3% | 2 | 3m | |
| Beetley | FP | 2 | 344 | 328 | −4.7% | 2 | 6w | Short section through wood unmapped. |
| Narborough | BR | 6 | 407 | 406 | −0.2% | 2 | 7y | On NCC Highways map, the BR6 line starts at TF74001185, which is about 75m from end of the U33313 at TF74031184. Surely the two should join. Also, the route appears to go under/through a building at TF73961186. This point needs a survey and then to be mapped appropriately in OSM. |
| Swaffham | FP | 25 | 349 | 350 | +0.3% | 2 | 7y | Statement says E end of route is at Norwich Road. In GIS data the route stops short. Definitive Map is inconclusive. |
| Parish | Number | LGIS | LOSM | ΔL/L | MS | LE | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dereham | FP | 1 | 58 | 96 | +65.5% | 4 | 7y | Route commences on Bush Lane at TG01691355, but this is not recorded as a Public Highway or Right of Way. |
| Dereham | FP | 1a | 320 | 361 | +12.8% | 4 | 7y | |
| Dereham | FP | 14 | 1351 | 1129 | −16.4% | 4 | 15m | Route is obstructed just south of the stile at TF98251227, but there is a well-trodden alternative path around to the west. Part of the route to the south of the A47 is included in the GIS data, when it should be under FP 14a. |
| Dereham | FP | 14a | 81 | 337 | +316.0% | 4 | 3y | The route between TF98241215 and TF98161193 does not exist on the ground, but a bridge linking to Scarning FP 7 provides an alternative parallel route. Although the statement is not clear, I think this route should go all the way from the A47 to Stone Road at TF98161193. This means that Part of this route is recorded as FP 14 in the GIS data. |
| East Tuddenham | FP | 9 | 1558 | 1652 | +6.0% | 4 | 5w | |
| Garboldisham | RB | 16 | 541 | 612 | +13.1% | 4 | 6y | Statement says that route continues past NW end of RB 17 to meet public highway. Line in GIS data and on Definitive Map stops at RB 17. Should a Short spur of Parson's Lane be a Public Highway, even though it's not included on the NCC Highways map? |
| Gressenhall | RB | 7 | 72 | 56 | −22.2% | 4 | 8y | OSM mapping need checking on the ground. |
| Hockering | FP | 12 | 14 | 31 | +121.4% | 4 | 3y | Short link between Lyng Road and A47 bypass. |
| Kilverstone | FP | 1 | 41 | 69 | +68.3% | 4 | 8y | Route impassible on ground, but can easily walk around the road instead. |
| Little Cressingham | FP | 5 | 197 | 226 | +14.7% | 4 | 7y | Mapped route longer than GIS data, but I think the former matches the hedge gaps on the ground. |
| Lynford | FP | 6 | 256 | 24 | −90.6% | 4 | 23m | The Definitive Map and GIS data show the path continuing over (half of) a footbridge at TL82548727. This is a 20m or so away from the location of the actual footbridge. The bridge is in the wrong place. The definitive line goes through the St Helen's monument site, and is therefore obstructed by the perimeter fence. It's easy enough to divert around it, but the route should be officially diverted. |
| Mattishall | FP | 1 | 1192 | 1563 | +31.1% | 4 | 3m | Statement says route ends at "Stone Lane". If this is the C211A "Stone Road", then the GIS data and Definitive Map are missing the last 400m of the route, as it stops at TG03111226. If "Stone Lane" is not the C211A, then there is a gap in the network from TG03111226 to TG02801206, as this track is not recorded as a Public Highway. The segment from TG03111226 to TG02801206 is signed as a Footpath on the ground, and is mapped as such in OSM. |
| Shipdham | FP | 19 | 61 | 127 | +108.2% | 4 | 4y | |
| South Acre | RB | 5 | 334 | 366 | +9.6% | 4 | 4y | The Definitive Line is not reinstated across the field, but it is walkable (crops permitting). |
| South Lopham | FP | 16 | 539 | 600 | +11.3% | 4 | 10y | Definitive Statement says route starts at Brickkiln Lane, but in GIS data, the route stops about 50m W of the lane (U33157). Unclear why, or what the status of the missing segment is. If GIS data is correct, there's a 50m gap on the network between U33157 and the start of the route. |
| Swaffham | FP | 19 | 83 | 104 | +25.3% | 4 | 20m | |
| Swaffham | FP | 30 | 147 | 130 | −11.6% | 4 | 4y | GIS data erroenously includes part of FP 65 between Mangate Street at TF82130905 and the true end of FP 30 at TF82130902. |
| Swaffham | RB | 47 | 1677 | 1791 | +6.8% | 4 | 7y | GIS data and Definitive Map have route stopping at TF83110711, about 70m short of Watton Road -- the end point in the Statement. The gap between TF83110711 is not recorded as a Highway, so if the GIS data and Defintive Map are correct there's a gap in the PRoW network here. |
| Swaffham | RB | 54 | 1659 | 1547 | −6.8% | 4 | 2m | |
| Swaffham | RB | 60 | 838 | 1999 | +138.5% | 4 | 7y | Statement says RB goes from Westacre Road to Fincham Drove. Route in GIS data and on Definitive Map stops at TF79971021 after less than 850m. If the Map is correct, then this route is a dead end. |
| Swaffham | FP | 63 | 113 | 257 | +127.4% | 4 | 2y | This Right of Way comprises several paths in and out of the Shambles. The lines in GIS data don't meet in the middle. Is the centre of the Shambles a public highway perhaps? |
| Swaffham | BR | 69 | 20 | 37 | +85.0% | 4 | 19m | |
| Parish | Number | LGIS | LOSM | ΔL/L | MS | LE | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dereham | FP | 14 | 1351 | 1129 | −16.4% | 4 | 15m | Route is obstructed just south of the stile at TF98251227, but there is a well-trodden alternative path around to the west. Part of the route to the south of the A47 is included in the GIS data, when it should be under FP 14a. |
| Dereham | FP | 14a | 81 | 337 | +316.0% | 4 | 3y | The route between TF98241215 and TF98161193 does not exist on the ground, but a bridge linking to Scarning FP 7 provides an alternative parallel route. Although the statement is not clear, I think this route should go all the way from the A47 to Stone Road at TF98161193. This means that Part of this route is recorded as FP 14 in the GIS data. |
| Lynford | FP | 6 | 256 | 24 | −90.6% | 4 | 23m | The Definitive Map and GIS data show the path continuing over (half of) a footbridge at TL82548727. This is a 20m or so away from the location of the actual footbridge. The bridge is in the wrong place. The definitive line goes through the St Helen's monument site, and is therefore obstructed by the perimeter fence. It's easy enough to divert around it, but the route should be officially diverted. |
| Mattishall | FP | 1 | 1192 | 1563 | +31.1% | 4 | 3m | Statement says route ends at "Stone Lane". If this is the C211A "Stone Road", then the GIS data and Definitive Map are missing the last 400m of the route, as it stops at TG03111226. If "Stone Lane" is not the C211A, then there is a gap in the network from TG03111226 to TG02801206, as this track is not recorded as a Public Highway. The segment from TG03111226 to TG02801206 is signed as a Footpath on the ground, and is mapped as such in OSM. |
| Narborough | FP | 1 | 2402 | 2523 | +5.0% | 4 | 6y | Statement suggests route starts from old A47 (now C537) whereas GIS data has the route starting from the end of River Close. Has there been a diversion order? There's evidence of a change being made on the Definitive Map, but no record in the Amendments section. |
| Shipdham | FP | 19 | 61 | 127 | +108.2% | 4 | 4y | |
| South Lopham | FP | 16 | 539 | 600 | +11.3% | 4 | 10y | Definitive Statement says route starts at Brickkiln Lane, but in GIS data, the route stops about 50m W of the lane (U33157). Unclear why, or what the status of the missing segment is. If GIS data is correct, there's a 50m gap on the network between U33157 and the start of the route. |
| Swaffham | RB | 47 | 1677 | 1791 | +6.8% | 4 | 7y | GIS data and Definitive Map have route stopping at TF83110711, about 70m short of Watton Road -- the end point in the Statement. The gap between TF83110711 is not recorded as a Highway, so if the GIS data and Defintive Map are correct there's a gap in the PRoW network here. |
| Swaffham | RB | 54 | 1659 | 1547 | −6.8% | 4 | 2m | |
| Swaffham | RB | 60 | 838 | 1999 | +138.5% | 4 | 7y | Statement says RB goes from Westacre Road to Fincham Drove. Route in GIS data and on Definitive Map stops at TF79971021 after less than 850m. If the Map is correct, then this route is a dead end. |
| Parish | Number | LGIS | LOSM | ΔL/L | MS | LE | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Swaffham | FP | 25 | 349 | 350 | +0.3% | 2 | 7y | Statement says E end of route is at Norwich Road. In GIS data the route stops short. Definitive Map is inconclusive. |
| Parish | Number | LGIS | LOSM | ΔL/L | MS | LE | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ashill | FP | 6 | 434 | 399 | −8.1% | 3 | 9y | |
| Banham | FP | 15 | 707 | 758 | +7.2% | 3 | 4y | |
| Banham | FP | 29 | 678 | 672 | −0.9% | 3 | 10y | |
| Banham | FP | 30 | 2403 | 2412 | +0.4% | 3 | 3y | |
| Bawdeswell | FP | 3 | 335 | 299 | −10.7% | 3 | 9y | Alignment in OSM doesn't match GIS data. |
| Beetley | FP | 6 | 762 | 946 | +24.1% | 3 | 2m | |
| Beetley | FP | 9 | 611 | 739 | +20.9% | 3 | 4y | North end of mapped route does not follow definitive line. |
| Beetley | FP | 12 | 342 | 394 | +15.2% | 3 | 9y | |
| Besthorpe | FP | 8 | 638 | 639 | +0.2% | 3 | 9y | |
| Bintree | FP | 1 | 193 | 223 | +15.5% | 3 | 7y | |
| Cranworth | FP | 4 | 1243 | 1617 | +30.1% | 3 | 3w | Statement says route ends at "the Public Highway at High Common". But the Definitive Map and GIS data show the route ending at TF99340550 about 150m short. The track to the road from TF99340550 isn't recorded as a Public Highway or Right of Way, making FP 4 a dead end. |
| Dereham | FP | 5 | 202 | 169 | −16.3% | 3 | 2y | Route ends on Bush Lane at TG01641362, but this is not recorded as a Public Highway or Right of Way. |
| Dereham | FP | 6 | 818 | 316 | −61.4% | 3 | 3y | |
| East Tuddenham | FP | 8 | 882 | 873 | −1.0% | 3 | 8w | |
| East Tuddenham | FP | 11 | 1014 | 1012 | −0.2% | 3 | 8w | |
| Elsing | FP | 4 | 383 | 437 | +14.1% | 3 | 3y | |
| Hardingham | FP | 11 | 294 | 278 | −5.4% | 3 | 5y | In Statement, the reference to Hingham FP 1 should be Hingham FP 2, and no Hingham path at the E end. In GIS data, why doesn't E end meet with FP 9? Also part of the route shown in the GIS data actually belongs to Hingham FP 11. |
| Hoe | FP | 4 | 359 | 357 | −0.6% | 3 | 4y | |
| Little Ellingham | FP | 2 | 860 | 868 | +0.9% | 3 | 4y | Need to check paths at SE end of common. |
| Mattishall | FP | 9 | 769 | 828 | +7.7% | 3 | 4w | |
| Mattishall | FP | 21 | 459 | 332 | −27.7% | 3 | 7y | |
| Mileham | FP | 5 | 661 | 679 | +2.7% | 3 | 22m | |
| Newton by Castle Acre | FP | 4 | 176 | 178 | +1.1% | 3 | 8y | |
| North Elmham | FP | 4 | 386 | 404 | +4.7% | 3 | 2y | |
| Shipdham | BR | 15 | 784 | 774 | −1.3% | 3 | 4y | Route in GIS data runs through residential buildings. Has it been diverted? Oddly, GIS data for route was updated 2016-06-27, but route appears unaltered. Definitive map shows diversion to current line made in January 2003, but lines on map appear to have been drawn carelessly. |
| Shipdham | BR | 16 | 141 | 78 | −44.7% | 3 | 4y | Route in GIS data runs through residential buildings. Has it been diverted? Oddly, GIS data for route was updated 2016-06-27, but route appears unaltered. Definitive map shows diversion to current line made in January 2003, but lines on map appear to have been drawn carelessly. |
| Shropham | FP | 3 | 1455 | 1501 | +3.2% | 3 | 4y | Mapped route on OSM doesn't follow definitive line at S end. |
| Sporle with Palgrave | BR | 1 | 807 | 865 | +7.2% | 3 | 6y | Doesn't quite follow definitive line at W end. |
| Stow Bedon | FP | 1 | 508 | 548 | +7.9% | 3 | 5y | |
| Whinburgh | FP | 3 | 1341 | 1374 | +2.5% | 3 | 3m | |
| Whinburgh | FP | 6 | 1502 | 1516 | +0.9% | 3 | 3w | |
No RoWs found with this issue